The potential is great but I think it’s better to rethink our current choices and be more conscious with the food that we now have. If we lessen our consumption of animal meat then we can focus on feeding supposed animal feed crops to humans. The use of land and water would be less alongside lower carbon emissions.
We have solutions, or at least ways we could drastically improve things, but I guess folks would rather accept that they’ll be left with algae patties in the future rather than working to limit their animal consumption today. I don’t get it.
I agree with you, and I never said they were mutually exclusive.
My comment was on how, in my admittedly limited experience, people see stories like this and seem to accept that they may have no choice but to eat stuff like this in the future while making no change to their current choices.
Yeah, I think there’s a novelty factor in a lot of “innovations” that claim to be the secret to solving climate change. And while not inherently bad they sort of miss the picture in my opinion. Like, the future, in my opinion, should be made of trains and apartments. The dull things that we know work.
On a much more insidious level (not that I think anyone here has ill intent, nor the people working on these technologies) it almost implies that we don’t have the technology to stop our impact on the climate. We have the technology, it’s all political will.
I get you and that’s why most environmentalists encourage people to go flexitarian instead of fully plant-based. Eating less animal products are no doubt better than doing nothing at all.
I committed to Veganism because it aligns with my personal ethics and so far, the mock meats have been doing great! Even when I was still living in a third world country outside US, I had access to delicious foods.
Humans need some meat in their ration, and lab grown replacements etc are now too expensive for most of the planet.
However, “some” doesn’t mean a burger or two every day, so yes, there’s space for improvement. Meat is really expensive in terms of carbon emissions.
Frankly I’m not sure how one would notably reduce emissions of anything without actual control (like by force) over most of the world, where green stuff is less relevant than hunger and illiteracy.
But maybe it’s best that USA and EU and similar developed countries don’t have that control. I mean, green energy etc sometimes seem more important than actual lives being saved for many.
No, humans do not need meat. This is plain false! You can greatly decrease emissions by cutting out animal consumption and the FAO has been pleading for a global plant based diet for ages…
How much more expensive would such a diet be? Some plant-based foods can cost a lot depending on place and logistics.
That’s the question, and it’s an important one - it’s the same reason as why, say, WWW which started decentralized has become what it is now for most people. People do what’s easier and cheaper for them.
I’m not calling people “soy boys”, but people for whom you have to make such a diet not even plausible, but cheaper or as cheap as the existing ones, do not live in developed countries. Talk about the environment is not worth anything else for them.
I think that as soon as green alternatives are tastier and cheaper than the alternative, they will become more popular, like how solar panels are popular now that they are cheaper than coal power
Well, yes, this requires production of similar scale at every stage of the chain. With animals it’s animal food, drugs, various machinery in production, etc, which also cost less due to scale on which they are produced.
Green alternatives in this case have a potential to be honestly (without subsidies or anything) cheaper in the end.
The potential is great but I think it’s better to rethink our current choices and be more conscious with the food that we now have. If we lessen our consumption of animal meat then we can focus on feeding supposed animal feed crops to humans. The use of land and water would be less alongside lower carbon emissions.
This is the way.
We have solutions, or at least ways we could drastically improve things, but I guess folks would rather accept that they’ll be left with algae patties in the future rather than working to limit their animal consumption today. I don’t get it.
Who said it has to be one or the other? We can pursue these new methods for tomorrow while simultaneously cutting down on animal products today.
These two things are not mutually exclusive.
I agree with you, and I never said they were mutually exclusive.
My comment was on how, in my admittedly limited experience, people see stories like this and seem to accept that they may have no choice but to eat stuff like this in the future while making no change to their current choices.
Yeah, I think there’s a novelty factor in a lot of “innovations” that claim to be the secret to solving climate change. And while not inherently bad they sort of miss the picture in my opinion. Like, the future, in my opinion, should be made of trains and apartments. The dull things that we know work.
On a much more insidious level (not that I think anyone here has ill intent, nor the people working on these technologies) it almost implies that we don’t have the technology to stop our impact on the climate. We have the technology, it’s all political will.
Calling apartments “dull” is a bit generous
But animal meat is tasty 😣. Maybe plant based alternatives or lab grown meat will fill that gap and we can start using the farmland more efficiently
I get you and that’s why most environmentalists encourage people to go flexitarian instead of fully plant-based. Eating less animal products are no doubt better than doing nothing at all.
I committed to Veganism because it aligns with my personal ethics and so far, the mock meats have been doing great! Even when I was still living in a third world country outside US, I had access to delicious foods.
As lactose intolerant, I have been loving how many vegan products (mostly ice cream) have been appearing recently
Humans need some meat in their ration, and lab grown replacements etc are now too expensive for most of the planet.
However, “some” doesn’t mean a burger or two every day, so yes, there’s space for improvement. Meat is really expensive in terms of carbon emissions.
Frankly I’m not sure how one would notably reduce emissions of anything without actual control (like by force) over most of the world, where green stuff is less relevant than hunger and illiteracy.
But maybe it’s best that USA and EU and similar developed countries don’t have that control. I mean, green energy etc sometimes seem more important than actual lives being saved for many.
No, humans do not need meat. This is plain false! You can greatly decrease emissions by cutting out animal consumption and the FAO has been pleading for a global plant based diet for ages…
How much more expensive would such a diet be? Some plant-based foods can cost a lot depending on place and logistics.
That’s the question, and it’s an important one - it’s the same reason as why, say, WWW which started decentralized has become what it is now for most people. People do what’s easier and cheaper for them.
I’m not calling people “soy boys”, but people for whom you have to make such a diet not even plausible, but cheaper or as cheap as the existing ones, do not live in developed countries. Talk about the environment is not worth anything else for them.
I think that as soon as green alternatives are tastier and cheaper than the alternative, they will become more popular, like how solar panels are popular now that they are cheaper than coal power
Well, yes, this requires production of similar scale at every stage of the chain. With animals it’s animal food, drugs, various machinery in production, etc, which also cost less due to scale on which they are produced.
Green alternatives in this case have a potential to be honestly (without subsidies or anything) cheaper in the end.